Couldn't care less vs could care less is the same argument as best of the worst vs worst of the best. It's highly subjective to interpretation.
If you think that the best and worst are distinct classes, it makes sense to be the worst of the best. Better to be the bottom of the top 10%, than the top of the bottom 10%. If you instead think that best and worst are a unified class that overlaps, with the worst being the "least best" and the best being the "least worst", then you should strive to be the best of the worst, or somewhere in the top 50%.
Paradigm matters. Would you rather be the richest vagrant on the streets or the poorest multi-billionaire in D.C, vs do you want to be a wealthy scrub or a poverty-ridden trust fund baby, are two very different questions to consider before answering "best of the worst or vice versa?"
Likewise, if you think that caring is a spectrum (with negative care being loathing and antipathy, for example), then couldn't care less makes no sense -- you can ALWAYS despise something more than you currently do. On the flipside, if you think that caring is a real value, then could care less makes no sense -- either you care the bare minimum of none or you don't, there is no caring less than not caring.
In mathematical terms, if I ask you on a scale of 0-10 how much you care, and you answer 0, then you couldn't care less. If I ask you on a scale of -∞ to ∞ how much you care, and you answer -10 zillion gajillion babillon, sheesh, you sure as shit don't care in the slightest, but... you know, you could care less.
However, while some people say 'could care less' and others say 'couldn't care less,' both groups are ultimately just saying 'I don't care' and EVERYFUCKINGBODY KNOWS THAT, so it's a moot point that only pedants and assholes argue about.
The world doesn't grind to a halt when I ask for an Allen wrench and you hand me a hex key.
Couldn't care less vs could care less is the same argument as best of the worst vs worst of the best. It's highly subjective to interpretation.
If you think that the best and worst are distinct classes, it makes sense to be the worst of the best. Better to be the bottom of the top 10%, than the top of the bottom 10%. If you instead think that best and worst are a unified class that overlaps, with the worst being the "least best" and the best being the "least worst", then you should strive to be the best of the worst, or somewhere in the top 50%.
Paradigm matters. Would you rather be the richest vagrant on the streets or the poorest multi-billionaire in D.C, vs do you want to be a wealthy scrub or a poverty-ridden trust fund baby, are two very different questions to consider before answering "best of the worst or vice versa?"
Likewise, if you think that caring is a spectrum (with negative care being loathing and antipathy, for example), then couldn't care less makes no sense -- you can ALWAYS despise something more than you currently do. On the flipside, if you think that caring is a real value, then could care less makes no sense -- either you care the bare minimum of none or you don't, there is no caring less than not caring.
In mathematical terms, if I ask you on a scale of 0-10 how much you care, and you answer 0, then you couldn't care less. If I ask you on a scale of -∞ to ∞ how much you care, and you answer -10 zillion gajillion babillon, sheesh, you sure as shit don't care in the slightest, but... you know, you could care less.
However, while some people say 'could care less' and others say 'couldn't care less,' both groups are ultimately just saying 'I don't care' and EVERYFUCKINGBODY KNOWS THAT, so it's a moot point that only pedants and assholes argue about.
The world doesn't grind to a halt when I ask for an Allen wrench and you hand me a hex key.